Adam, Eve, and Satan in the Garden

[davidv]

If Genesis 2-11 is considered as a complete unit of information then it all fits comfortably within a historical timeframe from about 7,000 years ago to about 4,000 years ago in southern Mesopotamia.

Why is it reasonable to consider this as such. How can ten verses out of the whole Bible be considered a complete unit?

You can’t just pluck Adam out of the narrative and stick him somewhere convenient to suit your theological beliefs. The error does not lie with the text. It lies with a translation and an interpretation that does not line up with the facts. Also it lies with the mistaken idea that Adam somehow was the first of our species. That necessarily has to be given up. I could give you a deluge of historical corroboration but that is why I wrote a book. Or you could go to YouTube and type in “Creation, Genesis and Origins” and get it all in a series of 30 minute talks. Or I could give you a long list of books that you could take to the Library of Congress and look all this stuff up yourself. (Don’t worry, I’ll give you the page numbers too.)

 

[Wesrock]

I never claimed there was an error in the text.

Do you then claim the one year flood that covered the Earth is historical? That all other men and beasts were wiped out? That Noah was 600 years old at the time of the flood?

 

[MrSnaith]

Here is my point. Understood as Semitic history Genesis 2-11 makes perfectly good sense consistent with the history of the ancient Near East.

Maybe Gen 6 onward does, because it is from there we see the origin of the Semitic people (descendants of Sem), but in terms of the Covenant, it belongs to all peoples (Semitic and otherwise), since the Covenant was given to Sem’s ancestors… as well as being renewed with Sem’s father Noah, making it relevant also to Sem’s siblings, and their descendants.

But that only makes sense if there was a real primeval event belonging to a distant ancestor of Sem.

Nowhere does the Bible state that all humans everywhere came through Adam and Eve.

Maybe not in so many words, but it’s definitely implied by Eve’s name.

It is a common misunderstanding that dates to the early church.

Can you prove that the Jews believed differently, and that this misunderstanding was specific to early Christianity?

It is no wonder that Christianity is gaining in third world countries where education is lacking and they don’t have the acumen to question our 17th century misinterpretation.

I don’t know if you’re being serious here or not. I say this because you appear to be contradicting yourself. First you say that this is an “early church” misunderstanding, but now you say it’s a “17th century” misinterpretation.

On the other hand we are losing ground in North America and Europe where education is sufficient enough for them to know we have placed our faith in absolutely impossible interpretations of Scripture.

I think you’re insulting a lot of really well educated folks here, though I’m sure unintentionally.

By clinging to obsolete dogma we are damaging the credibility of sacred Scripture. And the cause for which we have labored is foundering.

I’m not sure you understand the dogma of the Church. The Church doesn’t hold scientific positions on this matter. What it does say, however, is that a primeval event took place to our first parents, so called Adam and Eve in the Bible. However, it does not hold the position that ages of these early patriarchs is literal, nor even that their genealogies are complete lists. This leaves open a date gap that may be years long, or thousands of years long.

Moreover, the Papacy, in recent years, has clarified the position that the creation of Adam, the man, occurred at the in-breathing of the human spirit into the human body. In other words, the proto-human species that existed prior to Adam wouldn’t be considered “man” in this theological sense, not possessing a personal spirit, though very similar to man in body.

Naturally, this means that there doesn’t necessarily have to be a contradiction with the paleontological record and the Catholic position/Genesis account.

 

[Dick_Fischer]

Why is it reasonable to consider this as such. How can ten verses out of the whole Bible be considered a complete unit?

Those ten chapters comprise an abbreviated history of the Adamic/Semitic race in southern Mesopotamia. The Sumerians and Semitic Akkadians produced literature during this same period of time some of which resonates with the Genesis narrative. For example, the city Cain built and named “Enoch” for his son was the second city reconstructed after the flood according to the Sumerian King List and was called “Unug” in Sumerian. Also, the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 tie the entire patriarchal chain from Adam to Abraham. When Abraham leaves Sumerian Ur a new chapter of history begins.